Harry Reid: We’ll shut down government before we shut down Planned Parenthood funding

[Rich_Olszewski]

Somehow, even if Bart Stupak was McCain’s running mate, you would still be soured on voting GOP in '08.

And on voting for Obama, too. I voted for a third candidate (pro-life BTW) as I considered Obama inexperienced, and I’ve just given my reasons for not voting GOP.

 

[estesbob]

Somehow, even if Bart Stupak was McCain’s running mate, you would still be soured on voting GOP in '08.

Without a doubt.

 

[ishii]

estesbob

The evidence does not support this claim made by many pro-lifers.

Although Obama is clearly a pro-choice politician, who has stated that he wants to keep abortion legal, his advocacy for promoting abortion is almost nil, especially where he was open enough to sign and executive order prohibiting federal funding of abortions in the Congressional Health-Care Reform Act.

Also, when compared to the Clinton’s, he doesn’t come close to being an abortion advocate.

Oh really? Then why did NARAL endorse Obama over Clinton? Why did Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL) endorse Obama over Clinton as early as February 2008? Maybe the reason is this:

"“There are few more tireless defenders of women’s rights in this country than NARAL Pro-Choice America and I’m proud to accept their support,” Obama said in a statement. "For decades, they have worked in the courthouse, in the legislature, and in the streets to make sure that women have the right to choose. This is a fundamental civil right that I’ve fought to protect in Illinois and in Washington, that’s being threatened by Senator McCain, and that I’ll be fighting in the months ahead to make secure today, tomorrow, and always."

Yeah, but I wouldn’t have placed any bets that if that bill ever came to congress today, McCain would not vote for it…

Obama has given us two solid pro-abortion rights justices. McCain would likely have nominated a couple of constructionist justices. That is reason enough to vote for McCain if one is truly pro-life.

You’ve left out McCain’s dishonest record on abortion, which is the primary point, but his infidelity toward his first wife, who waited seven years for him while he was a POW in Vietnam, and nursed him back to health, shows a poor moral character of the man…

Well, let me throw your logic back at you: if you had the choice between a man who was going to start a genocidal war and a man who wouldn’t start a genocidal war but who had been unfaithful to his wife twenty years or so earlier, which would you vote for?

Jim

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

e

Because the Hyde Ammendment prohibits federal funds going for abortions, even outside the country. The Mexico City policy in effect cut off any federal aid to poor countries for all health services.

The Mexico City policy stopped funding for overseas abortion providers. Do you really think the US should give funds to organzations that have a vested interest in talking the poor into killing their children???

This is misleading and I’m not about to get into a debate over the details. However, he opposed PBA on the federal level and still does.

He never voted for any restriction on abortion in his entiire career.
.

Yes, he did. He’s clearly a pro-choice politician.

But you said he did not support unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand-which is exactly what FOCA would have implemented!

But he didn’t hid behind misleading campaign rhetoric as McCain did.

Again you ask us to ignore what Obama clearly said he supports and reject what McCain says and instead accept your personal opinion of what he “meant”.

Because the consience clause is already in federal legislation and wasn’t necessary in the Health-Care Reform Act.

Then why was it necessary for Obama to rescind it?

Heck, even here in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts, health care workers can refuse to assist in abortions.

My aunt was a surgical tech who did so and was protected by the law.

Obama never had a leadership position in Mass.

I never heard anyone one say that Obama was a pro-life candidate with regards to abortion, he has always clearly stated that he is pro-choice.

However, on other life issues, he’s more pro-life than many who claim to be pro-life because they oppose abortion.

I think Archbishop Chaput neatly destroyed that assertion better than I ever could. As far as if other issues trump abortion as a life issue here what the Pope Said:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Again you are asking us to enter a bizzaro world where those who claim to be pro-abortion are really pro-life and those who claim to be pro-life are really pro-abortion. But I know where you are comoing-one must dwell in this world to be Catholic and demcorat

Anyway, this isn’t a thread about Obama, who I could care less about, but about the accusations about Harry Reid, which I already showed could not be substantiated.

So Reid did not state he would shut the govt down rather than let funding for Planned parenthood be cut off?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

And on voting for Obama, too. I voted for a third candidate (pro-life BTW) as I considered Obama inexperienced, and I’ve just given my reasons for not voting GOP.

I felt forced to vote for McCain because of what people said here on this board. I had to hold down the vomit as I did so.

I won’t make that mistake next time.

Of course, if I were to believe everything everyone says around here, just by being a unionized public employee, I am probably in mortal sin just by going to work each day.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Of course, if I were to believe everything everyone says around here, just by being a unionized public employee, I am probably in mortal sin just by going to work each day.

I’ve not seen anti-Muslim sentiment on this Forum anywhere as strong as the hostility towards unionized public employees in the last month.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ishii

Oh really? Then why did NARAL endorse Obama over Clinton?

Because at that point in time, Obama had the delegate votes to win the nomination.

They didn’t endorse either in the primary prior to that point.

Why did Kate Michelman (former president of NARAL) endorse Obama over Clinton as early as February 2008? Maybe the reason is this:

Same as above. By February, it was clear that Obama had the delegates, and Hillary did not.

However, go back and read the news on the NARAL endorsements of Obama and how it caused a divide in their organization.

Obama has given us two solid pro-abortion rights justices. McCain would likely have nominated a couple of constructionist justices. That is reason enough to vote for McCain if one is truly pro-life.

John McCain helped the democrats defeat Robert Bork.

He also went behind the back of the GOP Senate President and made a deal with 14 democrats not to approve any staunchly pro-life nominees that Bush would give them.

Well, let me throw your logic back at you: if you had the choice between a man who was going to start a genocidal war and a man who wouldn’t start a genocidal war but who had been unfaithful to his wife twenty years or so earlier, which would you vote for?

Well your hypothetical isn’t reality.

No candidate is going to run on a platform that he’s going to start genocide.

Jim

 

[Suudy]

Because the Hyde Ammendment prohibits federal funds going for abortions, even outside the country.

If this were true, there wouldn’t be need for the Mexico City Policy. The Hyde amendment only applies to omnibus spending bills to which it is attached. For example the 2009 Omnibus. A FAQ on the Hyde amendment is here). From the Hyde amendment:SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
Now, funds allocated in other acts are not subject to the Hyde amendment (such as Obamacare). Indeed, the primary target of the Mexico City policy was USAID, which was not funded by the omnibus spending bills, and was thus not affected by the Hyde amendment.

The Mexico City policy in effect cut off any federal aid to poor countries for all health services.

Only insofar as they provide abortion services. Poor countries have the choice of offering health services that don’t include abortion and receive federal aid, or they can choose to go without and offer abortion services. Don’t blame the Mexico City policy for poor countries’ lack of funding for health services.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If this were true, there wouldn’t be need for the Mexico City Policy. The Hyde amendment only applies to omnibus spending bills to which it is attached. For example the 2009 Omnibus. A FAQ on the Hyde amendment is here). From the Hyde amendment:SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
Now, funds allocated in other acts are not subject to the Hyde amendment (such as Obamacare). Indeed, the primary target of the Mexico City policy was USAID, which was not funded by the omnibus spending bills, and was thus not affected by the Hyde amendment.

Only insofar as they provide abortion services. Poor countries have the choice of offering health services that don’t include abortion and receive federal aid, or they can choose to go without and offer abortion services. Don’t blame the Mexico City policy for poor countries’ lack of funding for health services.

You are correct.

I stand corrected.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If this were true, there wouldn’t be need for the Mexico City Policy. The Hyde amendment only applies to omnibus spending bills to which it is attached. For example the 2009 Omnibus. A FAQ on the Hyde amendment is here). From the Hyde amendment:SEC. 507. (a) None of the funds appropriated in this Act, and none of the funds in any trust fund to which funds are appropriated in this Act, shall be expended for any abortion.
Now, funds allocated in other acts are not subject to the Hyde amendment (such as Obamacare). Indeed, the primary target of the Mexico City policy was USAID, which was not funded by the omnibus spending bills, and was thus not affected by the Hyde amendment.

Only insofar as they provide abortion services. Poor countries have the choice of offering health services that don’t include abortion and receive federal aid, or they can choose to go without and offer abortion services. Don’t blame the Mexico City policy for poor countries’ lack of funding for health services.

You are correct.

I stand corrected.

Jim

 

[ishii]

ishii

John McCain helped the democrats defeat Robert Bork.

Really? The historical record begs to differ:

John McCain on Robert Bork:

“***I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.” ***

He voted to approve Bork. Nice try.

Well your hypothetical isn’t reality.

No candidate is going to run on a platform that he’s going to start genocide.

You brought up McCain’s infidelity as a reason why you didn’t vote for him. I’ll make it simpler: If given the choice between a pro-life candidate who had been unfaithful twenty years ealier, and a candidate who, while remaining faithful to his wife, also remains faithful to his committment to the legal slaughter of the unborn, for whom would you vote?

Jim

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

Really? The historical record begs to differ:

John McCain on Robert Bork:

“***I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.” ***

He voted to approve Bork. Nice try.

Ishii

If Robert Bork had been confirmed Roe V Wade would’ve been overturned in the Casey versus Planned Parenthood ruling. The sad part of this is that Bork was defeated mainly because of Edward Kennedy, a professed Catholic

 

[sidbrown]

*I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed ‘‘abortion-rights’’ presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973. Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ‘‘pro-choice;’’ it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child - and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ‘‘murder’’ - the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life. *

Archbishop Charles Chaput

If you didnt know Obama supported unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand its only becuase you didnt look. he made no secret of it. In fact he promised to promote FOCA and said he would sign it if passed.

The idea that a Cathpolic could vote for Obama becuase McCain got divorced 30 years ago and does not have a perfect pro-life record is specious. You can noit find a single member of the magestrium that suggested there were proportionate reasons that would have allowed a Catholic to vote for Obama in spite of his pro-abortion stance.
*
*

One of the biggest supporters of Obama was Edward Kennedy, who received a beautiful Catholic funeral officiated by Catholic clergy and the archbishop of Boston. Shouldn’t a Catholic follow the example of the Boston clergy who gave glowing compliments to Senator Kennedy at his funeral? After all, the duty of the bishop is to teach, rule and sanctify the Catholics in his flock.

 

[ishii]

One of the biggest supporters of Obama was Edward Kennedy, who received a beautiful Catholic funeral officiated by Catholic clergy and the archbishop of Boston. Shouldn’t a Catholic follow the example of the Boston clergy who gave glowing compliments to Senator Kennedy at his funeral? After all, the duty of the bishop is to teach, rule and sanctify the Catholics in his flock.

I think the lack of consistent leadership and clarity among many U.S. bishops on this issue is a big reason why so many Catholics vote for pro-abortion rights candidate over pro-life ones. Not only is there a lack of leadership, but in some cases there is active participation and aid given to pro-abortion rights candidates and politicians. But there are so many Catholics who should know better, and they have really no excuse for voting the way they do.

Ishii

 

[Erich]

JimR-OCDS;7676022:

Because the Hyde Ammendment prohibits federal funds going for abortions, even outside the country. The Mexico City policy in effect cut off any federal aid to poor countries for all health services.

Only insofar as they provide abortion services. Poor countries have the choice of offering health services that don’t include abortion and receive federal aid, or they can choose to go without and offer abortion services. Don’t blame the Mexico City policy for poor countries’ lack of funding for health services.

Besides, abortion is emphatically *not *a “health service”. The very idea that child killing is health care is ironically absurd. Abortion obviously isn’t healthy for the baby, as it leads to a violent death.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

ishii

Really? The historical record begs to differ:

John McCain on Robert Bork:

Yes, I stand corrected.

You brought up McCain’s infidelity as a reason why you didn’t vote for him.

Not the only reason why I didn’t vote for him, and I provided other reasons. His infedelity while his wife was dying merely showed his character.

Also, the Keating Five scandal was part of my reasons.

I’ll make it simpler: If given the choice between a pro-life candidate who had been unfaithful twenty years ealier, and a candidate who, while remaining faithful to his wife, also remains faithful to his committment to the legal slaughter of the unborn, for whom would you vote?

Another hypothetical.

I voted for Ronald Reagan, who was divorced and remarried.

I voted for Both Bush’s, despite Dubya’s indiscretions of his past.

I didn’t vote for McCain, because of many issues I have with him, including his lip-service to the pro-life crowd, for political expediency.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Besides, abortion is emphatically *not *a “health service”. The very idea that child killing is health care is ironically absurd. Abortion obviously isn’t healthy for the baby, as it leads to a violent death.

You seem to think I’m in favor of abortions and pro-choice.

I’m not, I’m very much pro-life.

Jim

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the lack of consistent leadership and clarity among many U.S. bishops on this issue is a big reason why so many Catholics vote for pro-abortion rights candidate over pro-life ones. Not only is there a lack of leadership, but in some cases there is active participation and aid given to pro-abortion rights candidates and politicians. But there are so many Catholics who should know better, and they have really no excuse for voting the way they do.

Should “know better” than their bishops???

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If Robert Bork had been confirmed Roe V Wade would’ve been overturned in the Casey versus Planned Parenthood ruling. The sad part of this is that Bork was defeated mainly because of Edward Kennedy, a professed Catholic

True.

But also, John McCain compromised with 14 democrats, behind the GOP leader of the Senate, with a promise not to confirm pro-life nominees that Bush might put up.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

True.

But also, John McCain compromised with 14 democrats, behind the GOP leader of the Senate, with a promise not to confirm pro-life nominees that Bush might put up.

Jim

Thats not correct. It was an agreement where 7 Democrat Senators agreed to not allow filibistering of judicial nominees while 7 Republcans(McCain being one) agreeing not to vote for the “nuclear option” which would have allowed judges to be confirmed with a simple majority. There was nothing whatsoever in the agreement about confirming or not confirmig pro-life judges. In fact the agreement led to the quick confirmation of several appleate pror-life judges who were being held up by Democrat filibusters.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14